TBILISI (Reuters) - Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Saturday it was an "open question" whether stocks of weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq and conceded it was possible Saddam Hussein had none.

Powell made the comments one day after David Kay, the leader of the U.S. hunt for banned weapons in Iraq, stepped down and said he did not believe there were any large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons in the country.

No, no - we *should* admit to the fact that there are no WMD if there aren't any. It doesn't change the fact that the whole world thought there was, we asked for proof from Saddam Hussein that there wasn't (in fact, got a UN resolution asking for proof), and that Saddam refused to cooperate.

Whose fault is it that *everyone* thought he had them and he couldn't provide evidence that he got rid of them? Certainly not Bush's.

The fact is that Saddam was purposefully evasive and not forthcoming. He got everything he deserved.

Whose fault is it that *everyone* thought he had them and he couldn't provide evidence that he got rid of them? Certainly not Bush's.

Here's the rub. When Blix was over there and coming up with zip, we told him he emphatically he was looking in the wrong places. At the same time we were going before the UN with proof conclusive photos of WMD programs, places to manufacture, warehouse and on and on and on. Remember the comparisons the conservative pundits were making to him being the WMD version of Inspector Closeau? Blix said, ok if I'm looking in the wrong places, then tell me where to look. Suddenly we got quiet about knowing where they were.

That made me change my mind as to the WMD's being a valid reason to go forth.

The fact is that Saddam was purposefully evasive and not forthcoming. He got everything he deserved.

Exactly. During a UN hearing, I recall Powell disclosing intercepted phone conversations between senior Iraqi officers than poked fun at how they ran circles around UN inspectors.

The Israelis destroyed an Iraqi breeder reactor in 1981, Hussein later used poison gas against Kurds and Iranians.

Let the leftists whine. The President freed more women and religous minorities from from virtual slavery and actual genocide than all the platitudes from the likes of the pig Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, bent willie, NOW, NARAL . . . .

When Blix was over there and coming up with zip, we told him he emphatically he was looking in the wrong places.

Actually we did a lot more than that. The man was roundly slandered as an incompetent, a slacker, and for not giving an honest effort by the usual loudmouths. The vulgar Richard Perle and his gang were particularly vicious and relentless in their attacks on Blix.

The man's owed an apology, but his detractors aren't honorable enough to do so.

I think there were (and likely still are) WMDs buried in the sand in Iraq somewhere--and perhaps some of it carted across other borders, too. Nevertheless, Republicans had better do something more than this sort of fancy backpedaling we're seeing now. The Dems are already making hay with this thing. I think they'll clobber Dubya with it during the election. Say hello to a president Dean or Kerry or (shudder) Clark.

13
posted on 01/24/2004 1:43:23 PM PST
by MizSterious
(First, the journalists, THEN the lawyers.)

Oh, I have the Kay report saved on my hard drive. However, Iraq is hugh huge. Saddam had a lot of earth-moving machinery and twelve years to dig big holes (and some holes really didn't need to be all that big).

The program was active according to us. Twelve years of digging holes is not an active program. Besides, shouldn't our satelites have seen what was going on? they can find a hair on a gnat's butt, but they missed Saddam hiding weapons.?

Actually I couldn't remember if someone in the administration was making those statements or just the pundits who by extension represent the WH with the daily briefings. Sadly you are right. It was Perle and the gang.

The program was active according to us. Twelve years of digging holes is not an active program. Besides, shouldn't our satelites have seen what was going on? they can find a hair on a gnat's butt, but they missed Saddam hiding weapons.?

The problem I'm seeing here is that either the Bush administration was easily duped (playing into the dems' "he's stupid" scenario) or they deliberately misled people (playing into the dems' "he's a liar" scenario). Yes, most of us on this forum know we went in to Iraq for many reasons--nevertheless, there was also a lot of testimony and speech making about WMDs.

And, as someone else commented, this must seem like a slap in the face to Blair.

I maintain there were and likely are WMDs in that country, and no doubt some moved to other countries--but I know how the media is going to play this. I'm concerned by the ramifications--and the Bush admin had better be, too.

22
posted on 01/24/2004 2:17:07 PM PST
by MizSterious
(First, the journalists, THEN the lawyers.)

Yup, those blowhards made it sound like even a blind man could find the WMDs.....

.....I'd like to give Perle and his band of arrogant know it alls those thingies the beachcombers use to find bottlecaps and dimes in the sand, and drop them off in Iraq and let them show the world how stupid Mr. Blix is. ;o)

Here's a German "Die Welt" article from August, 2002, which I translated several month's ago. This German microbiologist was in Iraq 26 times as a weapon's inspector. This lady is a very straight shooter. She speaks directly and unequivocally.

AFAIC, there was reason to believe Iraq had bologicals, at least.

And, if what she said about Iraqi shenanigans at the labs is true, and I happen to think it is, Blix deserves all the ridicule heaped on him.

Berlin - A key factor in the discussion about a possible military strike against Iraq is Baghdad's potential for weapons of mass destruction. The microbiologist Gabriele Kraatz Wadsack, former inspector for the UN bio-weapon commission in Iraq and consultant for the topic of bio-terrorism at the Robert Cook Institute, regards the threat from Baghdad as very realistic. Sophie Mühlmann spoke with her.

DIE WELT: Does Iraq have something to hide?

Gabriele Kraatz Wadsack: In my assessment, yes. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any reason to not let the weapon's inspectors into the country.

DIE WELT: Dick Cheney talks about a deadly threat which emanates from Baghdad. Is he right about that?

Kraatz-Wadsack: Iraq first disclosed its bio-weapon program to the United Nations in 1995, rather than 1991 - and then not the entire scope of this program. Committees of International experts have found quite a number of discrepancies. They have come to the conclusion that one can't determine if the Iraqi bio-weapon program has ever ended.

Kraatz-Wadsack: The Iraqi government has disclosed to us that it has produced anthrax and neurotoxin in large quantities, that it has produced Aflatoxin, a mycotoxin which causes liver cancer. This had already been loaded into weapons, into rocket warheads and bombs. Furthermore, it had produced gas gangrene and the phytotoxin Rizin. Moreover, pathogens causing economic damage, for example, wheat rust agents. In addition, there was research and development work on various viruses. When you see the large scope of deadly and pathogenic agents, you realize how much know-how was behind it. The program was industrialized, open air tests and experiments with animals had been carried out. Iraq had produced huge amounts within a short time.

DIE WELT: And you suspect that all this is still in existence.

Kraatz-Wadsack: In any case, the expertise still exists. The scientists are there, the documents weren't submitted to us, weapons systems and production data haven't been completely explained.

DIE WELT: Are these exclusively Iraqi scientists, or has Baghdad had help from abroad with its bio-weapons program.

Kraatz-Wadsack: We have only been involved with Iraqi scientists. And the Iraqis, as far as its bio-weapons are concerned, have never claimed to have received help from abroad. Indeed, during the Gulf War there had been imports from foreign countries which didn't apparently seem to be related to a bio weapon program, though. Much is hidden in the industrial infrastructure, for example in facilities for vaccine production, which they then altered. In the bio-weapon area you can use everything in both a civilian as well as in a military scope, also. This isn't so simple to sort out.

DIE WELT: How are your experiences with the inspections? How do you track down bio-weapons?

Kraatz-Wadsack: As an inspector, you follow the information that Iraq supplies you with, you speak with scientists and look for clues yourself. Then you must verify the official information. You have to go to the facilities, analyze equipment technique, take samples from equipment and raw materials, install cameras and install sensors to determine how often the device is used. In addition, we had helicopter inspections and satellites, that is, a very intensive inspection regime - however, that depended upon Baghdad granting them access anytime, anywhere, without hindrance, to all facilities and information. And that was the handicap: Iraq didn't follow this UN mandate.

DIE WELT: How did it try to hinder on-site inspections, then?

Kraatz-Wadsack: Simple hindrance looks like this: You go to the facilities and the Iraqi representative says there aren't any keys. It's becomes a more extreme situation when Iraq says, we just won't let you into these facilities at all. Then a government representative has to travel there before you can continue. Delaying tactics. Then you have to deal in part with forged documents, or with fake representatives. You simply don't have access to correct information.

DIE WELT: So, you were most definitely lied to?

Kraatz-Wadsack: Yes.

DIE WELT: You have already been to Iraq for 26 inspection missions. How real do you assess the danger which emanates from Baghdad today?

Kraatz-Wadsack: Of course this is just speculation. But you can already assess the intention. We know that in the Gulf War Iraq launched rockets to Israel, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain which weren't loaded with unconventional weapon material. They have used chemical weapons in the Iraq Iran war and against the Kurds. Bio-weapons were the secret program and they have told us they want to have this as deterrence. In 1991 these weapons were deployable, however, they weren't used. They were already loaded onto rockets and bombs. The weapons systems have certainly been reduced for the most part, today, but of course you don't know what has gone on in the last three and a half years since the inspections have been interrupted. In any case, Iraq has the know-how and the potential.

Gabriele Kraatz Wadsack is a veterinary specialist in microbiology. She traveled to Iraq 26 times on inspection missions from 1995 until October 2001. She is now a consultant at the Robert Cook Institute in Berlin

"Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are being considered for use."

Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials.

The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December [1998]. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam's most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq.

The Saudi-born fundamentalist's response is unknown. He is thought to have rejected earlier Iraqi advances, disapproving of the Saddam Hussein's secular Baathist regime. But analysts believe that Bin Laden's bolthole in Afghanistan, where he has lived for the past three years, is now in doubt as a result of increasing US and Saudi government pressure.

News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are being considered for use."

US embassies around the world are on heightened alert as a result of threats believed to emanate from followers of Bin Laden, who has been indicted by a US court for orchestrating the bombing last August of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which 259 people died. US delegations in Africa and the Gulf have been shut down in recent weeks after credible threats were received.

In this year's budget, President Clinton called for an additional $2 billion to spend on counter-terrorist measures, including extra guards for US embassies around the world and funds for executive jets to fly rapid response investigative teams to terrorist incidents around the world.

Since RAF bombers took part in air raids on Iraq in December, Bin Laden declared that he considered British citizens to be justifiable targets. Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of CIA counter-terrorist operations, said: "Hijazi went to Afghanistan in December and met with Osama, with the knowledge of the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar. We are sure about that. What is the source of some speculation is what transpired."

An acting US counter-intelligence official confirmed the report. "Our understanding over what happened matches your account, but there's no one here who is going to comment on it."

Ahmed Allawi, a senior member of the opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC), based in London, said he had heard reports of the December meeting which he believed to be accurate. "There is a long history of contacts between Mukhabarat [Iraqi secret service] and Osama bin Laden," he said. Mr Hijazi, formerly director of external operations for Iraqi intelligence, was "the perfect man to send to Afghanistan".

Analysts believe that Mr Hijazi offered Mr bin Laden asylum in Iraq, most likely in return for co-operation in launching attacks on US and Saudi targets. Iraqi agents are believed to have made a similar offer to the Saudi maverick leader in the early 1990s when he was based in Sudan.

Although he rejected the offer then, Mamoun Fandy, a professor of Middle East politics at Georgetown University, said Bin Laden's position in Afghanistan is no longer secure after the Saudi monarchy cut off diplomatic relations with, and funding for, the Taleban militia movement, which controls most of the country.

Mr Fandy said senior members of the Saudi royal family told him in recent weeks that they had received assurances from the Taleban leader, Mullah Mohamed Omar, that once the radical Islamist movement secured control over Afghan territory, Bin Laden would be forced to leave. "It's a matter of time now for Osama." He said Bin Laden would have a strong ideological aversion to accepting Iraqi hospitality, but might have little choice.

Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing.

Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it.

Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice. ..." President Bush / 3-17-03

During the Clinton Administration Feb. 5, 1998:

Democrat Senator Tom Daschle: Saddam Hussein Leaves Us Little Choice But The Use Of Force. [C]learly the intransigence on the part of the Iraqi government and Saddam Hussein leaves us little choice at this point " (William Neikirk, Congress Talks Tough On Iraq, Chicago Tribune, 2/5/98)

Iraq must comply. There is no choice. We stand united in our determination to do whatever is necessary The United States has the resolve to ensure that compliance and we stand united today in an effort to articulate that very clear message as loudly, as unequivocally, and in as much of a bipartisan way as we can. (Democrat Senator Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, 2/12/98)

[A]bsent immediate Iraqi compliance the security threat doesnt simply persist  it worsens. Saddam Hussein must understand that the United States has the resolve to reverse that threat by force, if force is required. (Democrat Senator Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, 2/12/98)

3-17-03 President G.W. Bush's one last offer to Saddam to avoid war:

My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision.

For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all of its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq.

Our good faith has not been returned. The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage.

It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament.

Over the years, U.N. weapons inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraq regime have failed again and again because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends and it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat, but we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety.

Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me as commander of chief by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.

Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq.

America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations.

One reason the U.N. was founded after the Second World War was to confront aggressive dictators actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace.

In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687, both still in effect, the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.

In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq so that disarmament can proceed peacefully.

He has thus far refused.

All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing.

For their own safety, all foreign nationals, including journalists and inspectors, should leave Iraq immediately.

Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them: If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you.

As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need.

We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free.

In free Iraq there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms.

The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.

It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraq military to act with honor and protect your country, by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attack and destroyed.

I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services: If war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life.

And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning: In any conflict, your fate will depend on your actions. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."

Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it. Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice.

Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.

Our government is on heightened watch against these dangers. Just as we are preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking further actions to protect our homeland. In recent days, American authorities have expelled from the country certain individuals with ties to Iraqi intelligence services. Among other measures, I have directed additional security of our airports, and increased Coast Guard patrols of major seaports. The Department of Homeland Security is working closely with the nation's governors to increase armed security at critical facilities across America.

Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this, they would fail. No act of theirs can alter the course or shake the resolve of this country. We are a peaceful people -- yet we're not a fragile people, and we will not be intimidated by thugs and killers. If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them, will face fearful consequences.

We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.

The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.

Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations -- and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.

As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace.

That is the future we choose. Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent. And tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility.

Those weapons are either buried in the sand, hiding in folks' houses or in Syria or Iran. IF the weapons weren't there, then why didn't Saddam simply open up the country and allow inspections of ALL areas? He acted like a guy who had something to hide. I honestly think that the timing of this is perfect. The DemocRATS will make much hey over this then the evidence will be brought forth and they will look like fools. Not that they need something like this to accomplish that but ... :)!

34
posted on 01/24/2004 4:16:12 PM PST
by Sister_T
(Democrats are the REAL enemies to freedom in the world!)

I believe it has been proven that we were not entirely honest during the SALT treaties. I can't point to reference at this time, but I do believe we were in violation, but blew it off as necessary in the cold war. So even in our own treaties, if my memory is correct we were in violation.

I'm not willing to let every anti_american state off the hook. I believe we had enough reason go into Iraq based on the UN resolutions alone and Saddam's noncompliance with that. Factually that was accurate.

My complaint is we as Americans and the world were told that the WMDs were current, real and active programs were underway as we invaded. It was a sales job based on faulty information at best and deception at it's worst. For some reason, the administration felt we needed more reasons than the perfectly justifiable reason that was at our fingertips and legitimate.

I've seen on this and every other Iraq thread comments from Democrats and the previous administration about the realness of the WMD's. Boy, that's something to hitch your wagons to. Yes, there appears to be a ton of hyprocracy. But do we want to link ourselves to the previous administration? Doesn't that imply that old nemisis of "everyone does it"?

What was happening in Iraq is without a doubt horrible. But from a war on terror prospective, especially our interests, Iraq should have been far down on the list. The 9/11 terrorists were funded by the Saudi's and others. The terrorists themselves were primarily Saudi's. Much of the other money in the networks came from many European countries. Saddam's tiess to 9/11 are sketchy at best. Instead of going after the true instigators of 9/11, we go after a periphiral one.

Had all this been at the hands of the Clinton administration with the same actions as the Bush administration, this forum would have been abuzz about all the issues that so many have openned up and uncovered. Yet now we are for the most part strangely quiet.

My complaint is we as Americans and the world were told that the WMDs were current, real and active programs were underway as we invaded. It was a sales job based on faulty information at best and deception at it's worst. For some reason, the administration felt we needed more reasons than the perfectly justifiable reason that was at our fingertips and legitimate.

In a previous post, I translated a "Die Welt" interview with the German microbiologist Gabrielle Kraatz-Wadsack. I've found a lot information on the internet about this woman.

For example, here's an [English] article from the "Guardian Unlimited" in September of 2003 that describes her connection with David Kelly, and offers a short bio of her.

There are, of course, numerous articles in German to be found with a Google search. I think the woman is very consistent in her message.

I've translated two paragraphs that were of interest to me in this particular article, which was written in June, 2002. I am wondering if this may be what you consider to be the 'sales job' genre.

Is Iraq able to produce weapons of mass destruction today?

Gabriele Kraatz-Wadsack: Yes. They have the infrastructure in the country, they have the expertise, they have the experts, the knowledge and they have the materials, particularly for biological weapons. You can assume, if Iraq has the intention to produce biological weapons, then there is nothing to hinder them from doing so. Since December 1998 inspectors are no longer in country, and Iraq has refused to let them back into the country. So, you can't tell what has happened since then. In 1998, 18 experts from 16 countries had already determined, unanimously, before they left the country, that there were many things that weren't clarified. Even at that time, you couldn't determine if the Iraqi biological weapon program had ever ended.

....paragraphs are not sequential....[lj]

The USA is researching its own, strictly secret - critics say: illegal - bio-weapons programs. Isn't it absurd that, of all people, the U.S. government is threatening Iraq with war because the people in power are refusing to cooperate with weapon inspectors and are supposedly in possession of the same weapons?

Gabriele Kraatz-Wadsack: You can't say that. There are defensive research programs, for example, to develop vaccines or diagnostic systems. Every country may have such defensive programs, even the USA. There isn't any problem in this regard. It just depends on intent and Iraq has obviously had an offensive program. No other country has the same weapons of mass destruction as Iraq has had. The USA, meanwhile, gave up their offensive program in 1969.

I would tend to believe this woman, for the explicit reason that she was there, 26 times. I don't consider this a 'sales job' , either, given her credentials and experience. Additionally, she certainly was not espousing the popular opinion in Germany at the time.

Since your stance appears to be that the wmd issue was 'a sales job'; For my own edification, I am wondering why I should listen to you and believe that?

Actually if you read her statement, she is simply saying they have the capacity in technical expertise. Many nations have that capacity.

I'll conclude on the "sales job" in a moment. But what we were shown and told was that the programs were active, producing and stockpiling in the time between Jan 2003 and the invasion. Powell showed the UN photos and the world photos of active facilities. We told Blix that he was looking in the wrong places for the activities and the stockpiles (again between JAn 2003 and invasion) that we knew where it was taking place now. It's clear we didn't.

As for the sales job, that's what many of the (we've been asked not to use the term by Sabertooth, but this time it's appropriate) Bush bots. They claim that the Bush team needed to sell the American people and that it was necessary to use strecth evidence to make the point, to rally the populace. I'm only using the words of the Presidents defenders on this forum. I trust you are sophisticated enough, as you appear to be, to do a search to threads I've had this conversation with those folks and see for yourself.

It frankly pains me to see such action. I believe the President is a good president. I also believe that he sometimes has warts too. They spin the warts.

I look at the situation independently of the president and his advisors.

I wonder where people like this woman were in the lead up to the war.

I do most of my posting translating German media reports of current issues. I can say unequivocally that Kraatz-Wadbeck was never mentioned during the frantic (my opinion) attempt to stonewall the US invasion.

When I read her interviews, as she describes the Iraqis' trickery, I thought the ploys the Iraqis used to thwart investigations were insulting.

The UN, and Hans Blix, had to have been well aware of what people like Kraatz-Wadbeck were saying. In the US, the media was more likely to use Scott Ritter as a source of information, while people like Kraatz-Wadbeck were nowhere to be seen. (She, BTW, flat out said, when asked about Ritter's allegations, that she would have to 'contradict him' (Ich muss ihm widersprechen).

If I may paraphrase Kraatz-Wadbeck: The Iraqis had at one time the largest offensive bio-weapons arsenal of any country, ever (not defensive, offensive). There was no way to determine that they still didn't have them. Bio-weapons production can be hidden very easily within dual-use facilities, or in such sham operations as a chicken-feed factory in the middle of the desert which was fortified to the extent of a military base, or in a vaccination laboratory in which the employees couldn't correctly answer any questions the inspectors asked about vaccinations.

With the materials Kraatz-Wadbeck accuses the Iraqis of having had and tested, with the ability to produce these in current facilities, and with delivery systems consisting of indoctrinated teenagers, I don't think I could take any chances in a world where waiting until you're attacked before you are allowed to take any action could just be too late.

Kraatz-Wadbeck was saying there was a clear and present danger regarding bio-weapons, AFAIC. I don't think you need flashing neon signs pointing to specific locations, unless, I guess, your job is to convince the UN.

Reviewing the situation logically, if it were my family, based on what Kraatz-Waldbeck was saying, I'd act as if the danger was clear and present. I would like to think the people charged with protecting us feel the same way.

Iraq or the UN didn't show me anything to counter what this lady was saying.

That's my take, anyway. I really do appreciate the chance to have a dialogue about this issue.

You said you look independently of the President and his advisors. That's all well and good. However, we as Americans are lumped under his umbrella, whether it be President Bush or Clinton. So what they say and do is critical.

I've never heard of the person you refer to. Obviously, there is some reason she's not being heard beyond where you've found her. But even she said it would be difficult to determine a bio-chemcial program. The best she could do is speculate.

The President indicated that one did exist and it was quite active and verifiable. Clearly, that has not been the case.

Everyone is correct that at one time there was an active bio-chemical program. what we don't know is when it ended. Even she indicates verification would be difficult. So even if Saddam had cooperated, we could not have verified his claims.

I think this will be hard for Bush & Co. to spin. In the lead up to the war there didn't seem to be any uncertainty as to whether Iraq had WMD.

Why should Bush & Co.have to spin this? They were depending on the best intelligence available, including that from the UN and nations like Russia, China and Germany who all said Saddam had WMD even though they opposed the war.

Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Albright, Kennedy, Clark and nearly ALL the Democrats made the same claims about the Saddam threat and WMDs.

Those now claiming Bush and Blair have to answer alone for the fact WMD have not been found are the REAL liars who are twisting the facts for purely political motives.

I think you're taking my view a tad out of context. What she writes is interesting. I know nothing of her. But what I have found is there are people who can write something that strongly may influence a thought process but yet not be hard and fast with the thought. Until I know more of her and how she writes, then it's a tad hard to see what her context is. But she did say that it would be next to impossible to verify such programs. At some point it becomes very difficult to disprove a negative.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.